We need the wolf
theguardian.com
We need the wolf
1–10 of 93 posts
Re: We need the wolf
#2> Perhaps predators are needed to bring nature back into balance.
I don't really think this theme was sustained through the article, but it just starts off in the wrong spot. Nature isn't balanced in any meaningful sense. It lurches from one equilibrium to another in a haphazard way [0]. Equilibriums only appear because all the many unequilibriums die out, so by evolution everything rapidly reaches equilibrium.
Also this idea that humans are somehow above nature is not realistic. We are nature, in the same way everything else is. What we are doing is pushing the world to a new equilibrium. The history of everything will class us in the same pool of "sorta-terraforming" species as cyanobacteria. If we can make the world work without wolves, that is the new natural and there is no particular reason to believe there is some sort of cosmic doom awaiting us for our hubris.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equatio...
Re: We need the wolf
#3I vote for bears too.
Re: We need the wolf
#4I don’t know if they are in Europe, but in some ecosystems wolves are a keystone species. That’s a species that if removed leads to cascading changes with large effects throughout the ecosystem.
Here is part of an article at Wikipedia on wolves in Yollowstone describing the changes there when wolves were reintroduced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_wolves_in_Yellowsto...
The range of effects is astonishing.
Re: We need the wolf
#5> Perhaps predators are needed to bring nature back into balance. I don't really think this theme was sustained through the article, but it just starts off in the wrong spot. Nature isn't balanced in any meaningful sense. It lurches from one equilibrium to another in a haphazard way [0]. Equilibriums only appear because all the many unequilibriums die out, so by evolution everything rapidly reaches equilibrium. Also…
The equilibrium with lower biodiversity is more fragile and less beneficial for us[0]. Having said that, we are _not_ nature. We make conscious decisions and so we should hold ourselves in a higher standard (both from a practical and moral perspective).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity#Human_health
Re-reading my comment I realize it sounds like low-key creationism BS which was not my intention.
Re: We need the wolf
#6We should rewild 50% of the world and ban humans from entering without a permit. Permits should only be given to those with legitimate professional requirements.
Re: We need the wolf
#7> Perhaps predators are needed to bring nature back into balance. I don't really think this theme was sustained through the article, but it just starts off in the wrong spot. Nature isn't balanced in any meaningful sense. It lurches from one equilibrium to another in a haphazard way [0]. Equilibriums only appear because all the many unequilibriums die out, so by evolution everything rapidly reaches equilibrium. Also…
I believe Lyme disease is a symptom of the wolf and bear populations getting driven into extinction. Deer populations prosper and tick spread also prospers along with them. Ticks multiply on deer. Mice and small bird populations also prosper. They're reservoir species for Lyme but I fail to see the connection to wolves. Most likely also a smaller predator species like weasel, polecat, stoat, ferret, mink and wild cat are also driven into extrinction along with wolves and bears because of deforestation and habitat fragmentation. It's really a very complex issue, but it kind of boils down to huge swaths of woods getting fragmented and cut down for agriculture, forestry, entertainment (ski resorts), residential use. Residential areas are also growing into the woods, triggering more interaction with big predators and driving them into extinction where they're not already extinct (Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe).
So what would you rather have? A few sheep gone missing or the lurking danger of a debilitating, potentially life threatening condition carried by an insect the size of a needle pin?
Re: We need the wolf
#8> Perhaps predators are needed to bring nature back into balance. I don't really think this theme was sustained through the article, but it just starts off in the wrong spot. Nature isn't balanced in any meaningful sense. It lurches from one equilibrium to another in a haphazard way [0]. Equilibriums only appear because all the many unequilibriums die out, so by evolution everything rapidly reaches equilibrium. Also…
The equilibrium with lower biodiversity is more fragile and less beneficial for us[0]. Having said that, we are _not_ nature . We make conscious decisions and so we should hold ourselves in a higher standard (both from a practical and moral perspective). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity#Human_health Re-reading my comment I realize it sounds like low-key creationism BS which was not my intention.
We are not nature? I assume you are now invoking the mystical and magical "free will" with the word "conscious"? How does saying that word change anything? Where do you think your choices originate from? A soul?
Re: We need the wolf
#9> Perhaps predators are needed to bring nature back into balance. I don't really think this theme was sustained through the article, but it just starts off in the wrong spot. Nature isn't balanced in any meaningful sense. It lurches from one equilibrium to another in a haphazard way [0]. Equilibriums only appear because all the many unequilibriums die out, so by evolution everything rapidly reaches equilibrium. Also…
The equilibrium with lower biodiversity is more fragile and less beneficial for us[0]. Having said that, we are _not_ nature . We make conscious decisions and so we should hold ourselves in a higher standard (both from a practical and moral perspective). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity#Human_health Re-reading my comment I realize it sounds like low-key creationism BS which was not my intention.
If tomorrow we find proof that dolphins make conscious decisions, will they cease to be nature?
I suspect whether to draw the line to make 'nature' include or exclude humans is very similar to whether to include or exclude the observer in quantum mechanics.
Both perspectives are entirely reasonable, but they are useful in different circumstances.
Re: We need the wolf
#10> Perhaps predators are needed to bring nature back into balance. I don't really think this theme was sustained through the article, but it just starts off in the wrong spot. Nature isn't balanced in any meaningful sense. It lurches from one equilibrium to another in a haphazard way [0]. Equilibriums only appear because all the many unequilibriums die out, so by evolution everything rapidly reaches equilibrium. Also…
I believe Lyme disease is a symptom of the wolf and bear populations getting driven into extinction. Deer populations prosper and tick spread also prospers along with them. Ticks multiply on deer. Mice and small bird populations also prosper. They're reservoir species for Lyme but I fail to see the connection to wolves. Most likely also a smaller predator species like weasel, polecat, stoat, ferret, mink and wild cat…
If one predator like wolves goes away, another predator like ticks picks up the slack.
Interestingly, parasites with complex lifecycles are good indicators of biodiversity in general, because they lodge in multiple different hosts across the different levels of the ecosystem.